171 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

While there will always be a measure of speculation and bias when discussing game developers and their movements, I will remind everyone that I will not accept any disrespect towards any of our developers posted in this thread. Likes and dislikes are one thing, and will always be permitted here, but accusations and insults are quite another thing entirely. If you cannot be at least respectful towards our developers (you don't have to like them or their decisions or statements, necessarily), you will find your time in the BioWare Social Network to be rather short.

[eyesofastorm]

Stanley Woo wrote...

While there will always be a measure of speculation and bias when discussing game developers and their movements, I will remind everyone that I will not accept any disrespect towards any of our developers posted in this thread. Likes and dislikes are one thing, and will always be permitted here, but accusations and insults are quite another thing entirely. If you cannot be at least respectful towards our developers (you don't have to like them or their decisions or statements, necessarily), you will find your time in the BioWare Social Network to be rather short.

Just to be certain that I don't make the same mistake at some point in the future, which specific part of the post that you deleted was unacceptable?  I just ask because while the tone was harsh, I didn't see anything that constituted a direct insult...  or even an indirect insult.  Was the language just too strong?  Would it have been better if the poster had suggested that Mike was just a highly effective brown noser rather than a "posterior"-kisser?  Or should we just avoid criticisms of devs altogether?  

[hoorayforicecream]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Just to be certain that I don't make the same mistake at some point in the future, which specific part of the post that you deleted was unacceptable?  I just ask because while the tone was harsh, I didn't see anything that constituted a direct insult...  or even an indirect insult.  Was the language just too strong?  Would it have been better if the poster had suggested that Mike was just a highly effective brown noser rather than a "posterior"-kisser?  Or should we just avoid criticisms of devs altogether?  

The safest way is to talk about the game, not the people who make the game. Short of being on the team yourself, you have no way of knowing who is responsible for what, what is a design choice and what was mandated by higher ups, or anything else about the development process short of what you're told. Since that makes anything a non-insider says just speculation, you're better off just simply talking about the game itself.

[Morducai]

Stanley Woo wrote...

While there will always be a measure of speculation and bias when discussing game developers and their movements, I will remind everyone that I will not accept any disrespect towards any of our developers posted in this thread. Likes and dislikes are one thing, and will always be permitted here, but accusations and insults are quite another thing entirely. If you cannot be at least respectful towards our developers (you don't have to like them or their decisions or statements, necessarily), you will find your time in the BioWare Social Network to be rather short.

I did not see anything that constituted as a direct insult or even indirect insult. I was merely giving my logical conclusion as to why Mr. Laidlaw gets a promotion while Mr. Knowels gets buried. If that means you outright threatening to ban then so be it. But just to be clear, you ban me from the forums not from my account as I noticed that in the past those lines are kinda blurred. However, I do thank you for making me see where people stand here. For what it's worth I apologize for my words. 

[eyesofastorm]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Just to be certain that I don't make the same mistake at some point in the future, which specific part of the post that you deleted was unacceptable?  I just ask because while the tone was harsh, I didn't see anything that constituted a direct insult...  or even an indirect insult.  Was the language just too strong?  Would it have been better if the poster had suggested that Mike was just a highly effective brown noser rather than a "posterior"-kisser?  Or should we just avoid criticisms of devs altogether?  

The safest way is to talk about the game, not the people who make the game. Short of being on the team yourself, you have no way of knowing who is responsible for what, what is a design choice and what was mandated by higher ups, or anything else about the development process short of what you're told. Since that makes anything a non-insider says just speculation, you're better off just simply talking about the game itself.

Sure that's smart and responsible... two things that people tend not to be when they have a stake in something.  A professional sports team has a disasterous season even though the team seems to be pretty talented and fans call for the coach to be fired and no one finds this reprehensible.  A company posts losses for a few straight years and the stockholders call for the CEO to be fired and this is the way of the world.  A country enters into a long, unpopular war and then the economy crashes on top of it and the President is replaced by a man with opposing ideologies and this is democracy.  I don't see that this is any different really.  I understand it's mean and harsh to hold "the lead designer" or "the head coach" or "the CEO" or "the President" responsible for the failures of the things this person is responsible for, but... it's a jungle out there... you know?

[Ystitans78]

You can't really compare Dragon Age 2 to football team that had a bad season and here's why: Dragon Age 2 was deemed a sucuss it sold over 2 million units that's like a football winning a division or going to the playoffs. Secondly all of us here on these forums make up a very small amount of the people that bought Dragon Age 2. I liked Dragon Age 2 and alot of people on these forums liked DA 2 I don't think it's fair to call DA 2 a failure just because a small amount of people that bought the game didn't like it.

Modifié par Ystitans78, 04 janvier 2012 - 11:49 .

[Realmzmaster]

Morducai wrote...

 Simple enough question. I would just like to know if Bioware released that information. Nothing against Mr. Laidlaw but I think it's clear that his version of DA is not the one fans wanted. 

What is clear is that some of the fans did not like the direction. and some like the direction. Which is why it is polarizing. So no it is not clear that Mike Laidlaw's version of DA is not the one fans wanted. If you wish to speak for self that is fine. I can only speak for self and nobody else. Did I like DA2? Yes! Did it have problems? Yes! Did I like DAO? Yes! Did it have problems? Yes!. Neither one is as good as some older cRPGs I have played. But, that is my humble opinion.

I wish to congratulate Mike Laidlaw on his promotion to Creative Director.

[DreamwareStudio]

Ystitans78 wrote...

You can't really compare Dragon Age 2 to football team that had a bad season and here's why: Dragon Age 2 was deemed a sucuss it sold over 2 million units that's like a football winning a division or going to the playoffs. Secondly all of us here on these forums make up a very small amount of the people that bought Dragon Age 2. I liked Dragon Age 2 and alot of people on these forums liked DA 2 I don't think it's fair to call DA 2 a failure just because a small amount of people that bought the game didn't like it.

I would say the people on these forums extrapolate to those who do not comment in these forums.  Visit the Facebook page for Dragon Age sometime, and you'll see a striking similarity there to what goes on here.

Putting personal likes and dislikes aside...yours and mine included, the facts are that Dragon Age 2 sold less than half of its predecessor when it was supposed to sell more than the original.  It polarized the fanbase.  It lost a myriad of customers for Bioware/EA.

Whether you or I like it does not help quantify whether DA 2 was a success or failure in light of the above facts.

[Stanley Woo]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Just to be certain that I don't make the same mistake at some point in the future, which specific part of the post that you deleted was unacceptable?  I just ask because while the tone was harsh, I didn't see anything that constituted a direct insult...  or even an indirect insult.  Was the language just too strong?  Would it have been better if the poster had suggested that Mike was just a highly effective brown noser rather than a "posterior"-kisser?

No, it would not have been better.

Or should we just avoid criticisms of devs altogether?  

A criticism of a dev like "I don't like what DeveloperX did and I hope they aren't on the team next time", while harsh, is still a valid sentiment, as one is stating an opinion and talking about someone's actions or the result of those actions. Indeed, someone stated in this thread that if Mike Laidlaw had anything to do with Dragon AGe 3, they would not buy the game. That's harsh, but still fair.

Criticism like "I hope DeveloperX gets fired" or "DeveloperX is an idiot" are personal and not at all acceptable. If that's the kind of thing you want to say, change your words around so it's no longer personal. "I would prefer if DeveloperY was in charge," for example, says nothing explicit about DeveloperX and would probably be an acceptable comment. For the latter, just say "I don't like DeveloperX." It's simple, true, and removes any explicit personal insult towards that developer.

The English language is vast and malleable. We can disagree with each other and voice our opinions, even unpopular ones, without resorting to personal insults. Thank you.

[Realmzmaster]

google_calasade wrote...

Ystitans78 wrote...

You can't really compare Dragon Age 2 to football team that had a bad season and here's why: Dragon Age 2 was deemed a sucuss it sold over 2 million units that's like a football winning a division or going to the playoffs. Secondly all of us here on these forums make up a very small amount of the people that bought Dragon Age 2. I liked Dragon Age 2 and alot of people on these forums liked DA 2 I don't think it's fair to call DA 2 a failure just because a small amount of people that bought the game didn't like it.

I would say the people on these forums extrapolate to those who do not comment in these forums.  Visit the Facebook page for Dragon Age sometime, and you'll see a striking similarity there to what goes on here.

Putting personal likes and dislikes aside...yours and mine included, the facts are that Dragon Age 2 sold less than half of its predecessor when it was supposed to sell more than the original.  It polarized the fanbase.  It lost a myriad of customers for Bioware/EA.

Whether you or I like it does not help quantify whether DA 2 was a success or failure in light of the above facts.

Sales and profitability are not one and the same. DA2 is a commercial success and it made a profit. That is a success no matter what definition you choose to use. Did it have as many sales as DAO? No. The point of a businesses is to make profit. Development costs must be taken into consideration. For example if it cost Bioware $200 million to make DAO in development cost over five years and it makes 240 million in sales that is a net profit of $40 million. 
If DA2 cost $95 million to make and gets sales of $135. Net profit is $40 million. I make the same profit. DA2 is a commercial success, but not a popular success. Note numbers for development costs are imaginary since I do not know what they are.

[eyesofastorm]

Stanley Woo wrote...
A criticism of a dev like "I don't like what DeveloperX did and I hope they aren't on the team next time", while harsh, is still a valid sentiment, as one is stating an opinion and talking about someone's actions or the result of those actions. Indeed, someone stated in this thread that if Mike Laidlaw had anything to do with Dragon AGe 3, they would not buy the game. That's harsh, but still fair.

Criticism like "I hope DeveloperX gets fired" or "DeveloperX is an idiot" are personal and not at all acceptable. If that's the kind of thing you want to say, change your words around so it's no longer personal. "I would prefer if DeveloperY was in charge," for example, says nothing explicit about DeveloperX and would probably be an acceptable comment. For the latter, just say "I don't like DeveloperX." It's simple, true, and removes any explicit personal insult towards that developer.

The English language is vast and malleable. We can disagree with each other and voice our opinions, even unpopular ones, without resorting to personal insults. Thank you.

This being your site, the rules are, of course, yours to dictate, but I think you guys need to rethink this.  I agree that saying "Developer X smells funny and has poo for brains" is an insult.  I do not believe that expressing a desire to see someone removed from a job is insulting... especially to someone is an ultimate position of responsibility.  In fact, I'd say that facing such demands is almost in the job description for a position like that.  The fans will never directly get to make the decision to remove a person from a position anyway.  Quashing people's ability to say those particular words is probably only going to make things worse... not better.  But again, your site.  

[Realmzmaster]

You cannot extrapolate what goes on the forum to the general Dragon Age fanbase, The sample size is too small. Also a lot of the people on the social networks are the same people on these forums. You will find me on many sites if you know my different aliases. So going to Twitter or Facebook means you are seeing the same people plus maybe a few extras. So it is no wonder that the opinions there are just as polarized.

[devSin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

A criticism of a dev like "I don't like what DeveloperX did and I hope they aren't on the team next time", while harsh, is still a valid sentiment, as one is stating an opinion and talking about someone's actions or the result of those actions. Indeed, someone stated in this thread that if Mike Laidlaw had anything to do with Dragon AGe 3, they would not buy the game. That's harsh, but still fair.

But an entire thread devoted to it? How is this at all worthwhile?

Exercise some of your authority, thank people for their opinions, and lock it. There's nothing here that serves any purpose, and the time you waste trying to be "fair" is time that could have been better spent nearly anywhere else.

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...


Sales and profitability are not one and the same. DA2 is a commercial success and it made a profit. That is a success no matter what definition you choose to use. Did it have as many sales as DAO? No. The point of a businesses is to make profit. Development costs must be taken into consideration. For example if it cost Bioware $200 million to make DAO in development cost over five years and it makes 240 million in sales that is a net profit of $40 million. 
If DA2 cost $95 million to make and gets sales of $135. Net profit is $40 million. I make the same profit. DA2 is a commercial success, but not a popular success. Note numbers for development costs are imaginary since I do not know what they are.

I understand, and normally, I would agree, but this case is different because DA 2 has hurt the long-term success of the Dragon Age series by the loss of customers it has caused.

Notice I did not say Bioware/EA lost money in the post to which you responded.  I said DA 2 sold far less than Origins.

Did DA 2 have short-term success regarding sheer profitability in relation to money?  Maybe, but neither you nor I can say that  because neither of us knows what the total cost of the project was.  We do not know their licensing expenses to the consoles, how many developers they had on hand, how much they paid artists, programmers, and every little thing that goes into making a game.  We know none of that.  We have no idea how many games they produced and shipped that did not sale.

The fact is you can no more say they made money than I can say they lost money.

So let us go with what we know.

What we do know is that Bioware/EA expected MUCH higher sales as I'm sure the shareholders did.  We do know that it reaped fewer sales, and therefore, the numbers of crossover buyers for DA 3 will be less than if DA 2 had been more popular and sold more copies.  Otherwise, they would be ensured the high preorder sales that blessed DA 2.  Those numbers of appoximately 300K in the first week most of whom bought before the game hit the shelves, is no longer a guarantee.  Bioware/EA will now have to spend more in marketing dollars to get the message out that the worst of the mistakes with DA 2 has been corrected because in order to recoup at least some of the lost fanbase, they'll need to increase goodwill towards the company and the series.

And honestly, that is just the tip of the iceberg to what DA 2 has cost long term viability.

Modifié par google_calasade, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:36 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You cannot extrapolate what goes on the forum to the general Dragon Age fanbase, The sample size is too small. Also a lot of the people on the social networks are the same people on these forums. You will find me on many sites if you know my different aliases. So going to Twitter or Facebook means you are seeing the same people plus maybe a few extras. So it is no wonder that the opinions there are just as polarized.

So, basically, what you're saying is that the uprising by customers here, Facebook, Twitter, etc. is an anomaly that had no effect on DA 2's success or failure and that the general populace that bought the game and does not participate in forums and social sites feels completely different?  That all of us who do actively participate online are in a vacuum?

Okay...

When you're done with those rose-colored glasses, I would like to borrow them.

Modifié par google_calasade, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:34 .

[outlaw1109]

Ponendus wrote...

I am not sure I really mind who leads to be honest. I am open to the fact that human beings are capable of learning from mistakes and I tend to give people more than one chance to prove it.

Good luck to the team, whoever leads it.

I agree with this.  Like I said before, I don't think the "Lead Designer" has as much control over such things as everyone seems to think.

Personally, I will wait to see what improvments have been made to ME3.  That seems like it doesn't make sense, but Bioware has suggested that they'll be incorporating pros from both of the previous games into it.  If the result is good and the same is said for DA3, then I might be inclined to believe.


Also, to some of the other points raised, I've noticed that Bioware (out of the companies I personally buy games from) seems to have a much more extensive method of interacting with their customers.  Saying that they ONLY care about profits is insane, because I can't imagine running the BSN is cheap.  Even if it's a blind eye they turn our direction, it's still more than alot of other companies give.  I'm not naive enough to think that it matters more than profit, but vocal minority or not, it still counts for something or BSN wouldn't exist.

[In Exile]

eyesofastorm wrote...
I do not believe that expressing a desire to see someone removed from a job is insulting... especially to someone is an ultimate position of responsibility. 

There is a difference between asking for someone else to be in a position of responsibility (which obviously means the previous person will be removed) and asking that someone be fired.

At any rate, it's ridiculous to hold a single person responsible for the direction of an entire company. At the very least, the entire upper echelon of the company had to be on the same page for how DA2 was designed, and very likely the majority of the creative team.

It's not as if Bioware hasn't shown a clear commitment to thing like PC VO (just see TOR) or a push for a general audience (see ME1-ME2) or generally shown a disinterest in traditional RPG conventions (see everything from BG1 onwards).

[Mark of the Dragon]

I am personally happy with Laidlaw’s promotion AND involvement in the Dragon Age franchise. I’m on these forums a lot and I am pretty sure that I have read most of the interviews for the game as well. It sounds to me like Laidlaw and the entire team have taken criticism to heart and are trying to make the next game better. More than anything Laidlaw is really passionate about the franchise, something every person that interviews him seems to confirm. I would rather have someone who cares about the series with power then someone who only cares about money.
I also would like to say that it is not fair to blame Laidlaw for everything that went wrong with DA2. There is a whole team working on it not just him. I’m sure he is told what is expected of him by his bosses as well and he tried to deliver. People always seem ready to jump down his throat about what went wrong, they never consider how he had only half the time to make develop the game. People need to layoff and just wait to hear more about DA3, like confirmation, before they start making accusations an pointing fingers. It could be a lot worse.
I for one stand behind Mike and hope that DA3 puts everyone fears to rest.

[eyesofastorm]

I don't wish to carry on this particular discussion any farther, but I do have to comment on how surprised I am by the prevalence of the desire to diffuse responsibility. It's contrary to all of the education, training and experience I have about organizations and leadership. *shrug*

[In Exile]

eyesofastorm wrote...

I don't wish to carry on this particular discussion any farther, but I do have to comment on how surprised I am by the prevalence of the desire to diffuse responsibility. It's contrary to all of the education, training and experience I have about organizations and leadership. *shrug*

You see it as diffusion. I don't. It's just nonsense to hold a single person responsible for something, remove them, and pretend like everything goes away. Especially when we're talking about a massive creative project. that was completely in line with the development trend of almost every other product in the company in the last 5 years.

To give an example, it would be like holding KoTOR II's lead developer largely and solely responsible for the state of the game.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 janvier 2012 - 01:11 .

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
I do not believe that expressing a desire to see someone removed from a job is insulting... especially to someone is an ultimate position of responsibility. 

There is a difference between asking for someone else to be in a position of responsibility (which obviously means the previous person will be removed) and asking that someone be fired.

At any rate, it's ridiculous to hold a single person responsible for the direction of an entire company. At the very least, the entire upper echelon of the company had to be on the same page for how DA2 was designed, and very likely the majority of the creative team.

It's not as if Bioware hasn't shown a clear commitment to thing like PC VO (just see TOR) or a push for a general audience (see ME1-ME2) or generally shown a disinterest in traditional RPG conventions (see everything from BG1 onwards).

We all hold George Lucas accountable for ruining Star Wars. How is it different exactly for stating Mike Laidlaw did his job poorly as the project head? Not that I think that, I persoanlly felt he did ok, i'm just saying we should be allowed to blame people for mistakes they make, even if its harsh criticism.

Honestly though, personal attacks I think are too much, but saying someone didn't do their job is claim that can't be made with real evidence. That said, I think that Bioware as a company needs to shape up a bit...or at least convince EA to give them time to do stuff.

Oh, and one more thing, your cynicism is showing, and considering the fact that a traditional RPG for a video game console is what Dragon Age II is by mechanics and design...I think a reevaluation is in order.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 janvier 2012 - 01:20 .

[Brockololly]

Sylvianus wrote...
I do not know, as Mike will have more control over the game, I asked myself the question of the relevance of a new lead.

I'm guessing that Laidlaw will have more of a big picture role in terms of where the games go but the nitty gritty of implementing any of those ideas will be up to the Lead Designer.


As for who DA3's Lead Designer may be, could it be Aidan Scanlan? Worked on DA2 as a Production Designer, according to the credits, is seen here in one of the early Game Informer videos on DA2 (listed as "Senior Combat Designer"), and on his twitter says "Lead Designer at BioWare in the Dragon Age franchise." Maybe could be just a Lead Designer and not "THE" Lead Designer, but who knows...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...
To be fair to  Mike it took ambition and guts to make so many changes given the short  development time. I just don't like the direction he took the series in.

I really don't think its ambitious or that it takes "guts" to try and make wholesale changes to a franchise in an insanely short amount of time- I think its incredibly myopic and foolish and possibly very damaging to the long term viability of the franchise. Assuming they knew they were working with a very short timeframe to pump out a full sequel, it seems pretty stupid to try and make massive changes in the art style, combat, narrative, dialogue and so forth, especially when the original game, which hadn't even been out 9 months before announcing DA2,  was generally well received both critically and commercially. It might take "guts" to do what Laidlaw and company attempted but I could just as easily say it takes "guts" to run into the freeway in front of an 18 wheeler- doesn't make it a very smart thing to do though.

outlaw1109 wrote...

streamlock wrote...

For  getting lassoed into that crap position I'd expect a promotion AND a  raise. Hell, I would have angled for some stock options and a place on  the board for God's sake.

I don't think he was  "lassoed" into anything.  He was the lead designer for the console  version of Origins and has been a part of a few other Bioware titles.   At least Brent Knowles had the decency to step down when he realized the game would be less than its predecessor.  Also, and I've personally  argued this point at the time the statement was made, Mr. Laidlaw seems  to believe that DA2 was not a sequel to DAO.

Even though Laidlaw is promoted to a higher position, it doesn't really seem to matter who the lead designer is.

The aforementioned Mr. Knowles didn't seem to have a choice on the  direction of DA2 when he was the lead designer, so I think the problem lies a little higher up.

Right, my guess (and its just that) is that in early 2009/maybe even late 2008, as Origins was mostly done on PC and subsequently delayed for consoles, Zeschuk/Muzyka saw how successful ME was and since DAO had been in development for so long, they got cold feet on how well it could do. Thus, at this time they went forward with taking DA2 into more of a console friendly, action RPG, ME style cinematic game. Knowles didn't like it and left, along with Exec. Producer Dan Tudge; then Darrah and Laidlaw take their positions.

We already know that BioWare started work on DA2 waaay before Origins was even out. Just look at Brent Knowles' blog on DAO and then this interview here with Laidlaw from after DA2 came out. I would just guess that BioWare did not think that DAO would do very well, when it in fact went on to be their best selling game to date. But at that point in time when Origins was already out as of November 2009, they had already sunk in a bunch of high level work on changing the fundamentals of everything for DA2, from the art redesign to the adoption of faster combat and voiced PC. They did all that without even seeing the response to DAO.

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 janvier 2012 - 01:20 .

[LinksOcarina]

To be fair though Brock, I know why didn't think Origins would be successful; it was technically an anachronistic game when it was released, not because of the content, but because of the mechanics. They did it old-school style, KOTOR style from 2002-2003, the big problem was by 2007 they had Mass Effect and it sold well...so well in fact they wanted to emulate the success.

Bioware pushed the envelope and their last gasp of the older style they were used to happened to be a success, although I think it was a success because of the story and the characters, not the design.

They will be sticking with the new way, just tweaking it now to make it fit is the task they need to do now. Learn from the mistakes in the Dragon Age II design and go forward.

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I don't wish to carry on this particular discussion any farther, but I do have to comment on how surprised I am by the prevalence of the desire to diffuse responsibility. It's contrary to all of the education, training and experience I have about organizations and leadership. *shrug*

You see it as diffusion. I don't. It's just nonsense to hold a single person responsible for something, remove them, and pretend like everything goes away. Especially when we're talking about a massive creative project. that was completely in line with the development trend of almost every other product in the company in the last 5 years.

To give an example, it would be like holding KoTOR II's lead developer largely and solely responsible for the state of the game.

That's life.  If a movie does badly they blame the director, if a team does bad they blame the coach, if a company does badly they blame the CEO/president, etc.  If you're in charge of something and it doesn't perform or comes out badly you're taking the heat.  If it does well you get the credit, it goes both ways.

Plus it was Laidlaw that was saying in interviews "I didn't like this", "I wanted to change that".  I've read interviews where he said he wanted to do some of this stuff in the first game but didn't get to. 

But either way, it's more than fair for the blame to come down on the lead designer.

Modifié par Aaleel, 05 janvier 2012 - 01:43 .